One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS. RESULTS: We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.

Effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation in the treatment of neck pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP). METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception through October 2023 by two authors. The methodological quality assessments were performed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), disability, and quality of life (QOL) were estimated for TM treatment in patients with NP. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 914 patients were included with a PEDro score of 6.923 ± 3.120. Pooled effect sizes of pain (SMD =-0.481, 95% CI -0.653 to -0.309, P= 0.000), disability (SMD =-1.435, 95% CI -2.480 to -0.390, P= 0.007), QOL-physical component score (PCS) (SMD = 0.658, 95% CI 0.290 to 1.025, P= 0.000), ROM of flexion (SMD = 0.921, 95% CI 0.287 to 1.555, P= 0.000), ROM of extension (SMD = 0.572, 95% CI 0.321 to 0.822, P= 0.000), ROM of left lateral flexion (SMD = 0.593, 95% CI 0.075 to 1.112, P= 0.025) and ROM of left rotation (SMD = 0.230, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.450, P= 0.04) were favored by the TM group. CONCLUSIONS: TM provides short-term effect on relieving neck pain, increasing cervical ROM, and disability in patients with NP without serious side effects. Continuous therapy and distraction therapy are recommended as optimal choice on reducing pain and improving cervical ROM, especially in patients with chronic NP (> 3 months). The TM-induced improvements in the QOL of patients with NP should be verified by more further high-quality RCTs.

Adverse Events After Cervical Spinal Manipulation - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Cervical manipulations are widely used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths, and medical doctors for musculoskeletal dysfunctions like neck pain and cervicogenic headache. The use of cervical manipulation remains controversial, since it is often considered to pose a risk for not only benign adverse events (AEs), such as aggravation of pain or muscle soreness, but also severe AEs such as strokes in the vertebrobasilar or carotid artery following dissections. Studies finding an association between cervical manipulation and serious AEs such as artery dissections are mainly case control studies or case reports. These study designs are not appropriate for investigating incidences and therefore do not imply causal relationships. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study designs for assessing the unconfounded effects of benefits and harms, such as AEs, associated with therapies. OBJECTIVE: Due to the unclear risk level of AEs associated with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) cervical manipulation, the aim of this study was to extract available information from RCTs and thereby synthesize the comparative risk of AEs following cervical manipulation to that of various control interventions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. This search included RCTs in which cervical HVLA manipulations were applied and AEs were reported. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, the methodological quality assessment, and the GRADE approach. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated. The study quality was assessed by using the risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was determined by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled IRR indicates no statistically significant differences between the manipulation and control groups. All the reported AEs were classified as mild, and none of the AEs reported were serious or moderate. LIMITATIONS: The search strategy was limited to literature in English or German. Furthermore, selection bias may have occurred, since only PubMed and Cochrane were used as databases, and searching was done by hand. RCTs had to be excluded if the results did not indicate the group in which the AEs occurred. A mandatory criterion for inclusion in the meta-analysis was a quantitative reproduction of the frequencies of AEs that could be attributed to specific interventions. CONCLUSION: In summary, HVLA manipulation does not impose an increased risk of mild or moderate AEs compared to various control interventions. However, these results must be interpreted with caution, since RCTs are not appropriate for detecting the rare serious AEs. In addition, future RCTs should follow a standardized protocol for reporting AEs in clinical trials.

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT. METHODS: A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers.

BACKGROUND: Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research. MAIN TEXT: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: a global comparison.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population. To rationalise the management of LBP, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been issued in various countries around the world. This study aims to identify and compare the recommendations of recent CPGs for the management of LBP across the world. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and major guideline databases were searched from 2017 to 2022 to identify CPGs. CPGs focusing on information regarding the management and/or treatment of non-specific LBP were considered eligible. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a total of 22 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, and were of middle and high methodological quality as assessed by the AGREE II tool. The guidelines exhibited heterogeneity in their recommendations, particularly in the approach to different stages of LBP. For acute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For subacute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of NSAIDs, therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP, the guidelines recommended therapeutic exercise, the use of NSAIDs, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Current CPGs provide recommendations for almost all major aspects of the management of LBP, but there is marked heterogeneity between them. Some recommendations lack clarity and overlap with other treatments within the guidelines.

Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Management.

Chronic low back pain, defined as lumbar pain persisting for 12 weeks or more, occurs in about 13% of U.S. adults. Patients with chronic low back pain should have a history and physical examination to identify red flags that may indicate serious conditions that warrant immediate intervention or yellow flags (i.e., psychological, environmental, and social factors) that indicate risk of disability. The examination should include an evaluation for radicular symptoms. Routine imaging is not recommended but is indicated when red flags are present, there is a neuromuscular deficit, or if pain does not resolve with conservative therapy. Patients should avoid bed rest. Nonpharmacologic treatment is first-line management and may include therapies with varying evidence of support, such as counseling, exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, heat, dry needling, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and physical therapy. Pharmacologic interventions are second-line treatment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the initial medication of choice; duloxetine may also be beneficial. Evidence is inconclusive to recommend the use of benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, corticosteroids, insomnia agents, anticonvulsants, cannabis, acetaminophen, or long-term opioids. Epidural corticosteroid injections are not recommended except for short-term symptom relief in patients with radicular pain. Most patients with chronic low back pain will not require surgery; evaluation for surgery may be considered in those with persistent functional disabilities and pain from progressive spinal stenosis, worsening spondylolisthesis, or herniated disk. Physicians should consider prevention of chronic low back pain when patients present with acute back pain. Screening tools are available to predict the progression from acute to chronic low back pain, and targeted treatment strategies are beneficial for preventing progression.

Comparative effectiveness of cervical vs thoracic spinal-thrust manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ample evidence supporting the use of different manipulative therapy techniques for Cervicogenic Headache (CgH). However, no technique can be singled as the best available treatment for patients with CgH. Therefore, the objective of the study is to find and compare the clinical effects of cervical spine over thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy in patients with CgH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: It is a prospective, randomized controlled study conducted between July 2020 and January 2023 at the University hospital. N = 96 eligible patients with CgH were selected based on selection criteria and they were divided into cervical spine manipulation (CSM; n = 32), thoracic spine manipulation (TSM; n = 32) and conventional physiotherapy (CPT; n = 32) groups, and received the respective treatment for four weeks. Primary (CgH frequency) and secondary CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, neck pain threshold, cervical flexion rotation test (CFRT), neck disability index (NDI) and quality of life (QoL) scores were measured. The effects of treatment at various intervals were analyzed using a 3 × 4 linear mixed model analysis (LMM), with treatment group (cervical spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, and conventional physiotherapy) and time intervals (baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months), and the statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The reports of the CSM, TSM and CPT groups were compared between the groups. Four weeks following treatment CSM group showed more significant changes in primary (CgH frequency) and secondary (CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, CFRT, NDI and QoL) than the TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001). The same gradual improvement was seen in the CSM group when compared to TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001) in the above variables at 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The reports of the current randomized clinical study found that CSM resulted in significantly better improvements in pain parameters (intensity, frequency and threshold) functional disability and quality of life in patients with CgH than thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/06/026092 trial was registered prospectively on 24/06/2020.

Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion. CONCLUSION: There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023429933.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part II: strengths and opportunities.

In a previous paper, we presented some important weaknesses of and threats to the chiropractic profession as we see them. We further argued that the chiropractic profession's relationship with its principal clinical tool (spinal manual therapy) is at the core of the ideological divide that fractures the profession and prevents professional development towards greater integration in the healthcare landscape. In this manuscript, we shall argue that the historical predilection for spinal manipulation also gifts the profession with some obvious strengths and opportunities, and that these are inextricably linked to the management of musculoskeletal disorders. The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d'être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

Effects of exercise combined with cervicothoracic spine self-mobilization on chronic non-specific neck pain.

To investigate the short-term effects and differences between exercise alone and exercise combined with self-mobilization training on chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Thirty subjects who met the criteria were recruited and randomly assigned to the exercise training group, the exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training group (ECCM), and the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training group (ECCTM). The exercise training group received 6 weeks of deep neck flexor under biofeedback and scapular stability training, and the other two groups received 6 weeks of cervical self-mobilization and cervicothoracic self-mobilization, respectively, in addition to exercise training. Neck pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), neck disability, strength and endurance of deep neck flexor and quality of life were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training. The study results showed that all the three training programs for 6 weeks increased the strength and endurance of deep neck flexor, increased cervical ROM, reduced pain, and improved neck function (P < 0.05). The exercise combined with self-mobilization two groups compared with only the exercise training group had better improvement in ROM of extension, lateral flexion, rotation and quality of life (P < 0.05). Compared with exercise alone and exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training, the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training was the best in improving ROM of right lateral flexion (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.01, d = 1.61, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.14) and pain (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.34, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.23). Deep flexor muscle and shoulder stability training can improve the endurance and strength of the deep flexor muscles of the neck and coordinate the movement patterns of the shoulder and neck. Self-mobilization techniques can promote improvements in cervical lateral flexion and rotation range of motion, alleviate neck disability and further improve quality of life. A combination of exercise and cervicothoracic self-mobilization training appears beneficial for the management of neck pain.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. METHODS: A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. RESULTS: 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

Physical treatment of migraine.

Physical modalities, including acupuncture, massage therapy, physical therapy, and spinal manipulation, are commonly sought for migraine headache management. Acupuncture has been helpful in management of migraine, particularly as an adjunct to standard therapy. Some studies support acupuncture in combination with electroacupuncture and a traditional Chinese medicine form of massage called tuina as beneficial. An estimated 15% of patients with migraine seek spinal manipulation with osteopathic physicians or chiropractors, though evidence of benefit is lacking and potential for adverse effects is low but present. Studies of massage therapy in migraine have been heterogeneous and of low quality, often combined with other manual therapies to show effect. While manual therapies appear to reduce pain and improve quality of life, further study is needed to determine which specific types of manual therapy are most effective. While exercise is good for all patients, specific migraine management with physical therapy and regular exercise is not supported by evidence. Nevertheless, these modalities should be considered in certain situations when performed by trained and licensed professionals.

Enhancing the Development and Growth of Infant Cerebral Palsy Rats Using Selective Spinal Manipulations.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a refractory pediatric disease with a high prevalence, high disability rate, and difficult treatment. A variety of treatments are currently used for CP. The treatment involves drug and non-drug therapy. Traditional Chinese medicine external therapy is a very distinctive treatment method in non-drug therapy. As one of the external therapies of traditional Chinese medicine, massage is used in treating cerebral palsy and has good efficacy, small side effects, and strong operability. As a part of TCM external therapy, selective spinal manipulation can effectively promote the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy.The operation was mainly divided into four steps: first, the rubbing method was applied to the spine and both sides of the spine for 1 min. The pressing and kneading method was applied to the spine for 5 min, and the muscles on both sides of the spine for 5 min. Second, pressing and kneading the sensitive local acupoints in the spine for 2 min were performed. Thirdly, the affected limb was treated by twisting method for 1 min. Fourth, the rubbing method was applied to a midline from the forehead to the back of the brain for 1 min. This study aimed to use selective spinal manipulation to treat infant rats with cerebral palsy. The weight, Rotarod test, Foot-fault score, and growth hormone of infant rats with cerebral palsy were detected to understand the effect of selective spinal manipulation on the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy. The results showed that it can promote weight gain, improve balance ability and motor function, promote growth and development of infant cerebral palsy rats, promote growth hormone secretion, and increase the temperature of sensitive parts of the back.

The immediate effect of cervical rotation-traction manipulation on cervical paravertebral soft tissue: a study using soft tissue tension cloud chart technology.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability of the Soft Tissue Tension Cloud Chart (STTCC) technology, an original method combining multi-point Cervical Paravertebral Soft Tissue Test (CPSTT) with MATLAB software, we conducted a preliminary analysis on the immediate effects of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) on cervical paravertebral soft tissue. METHODS: 30 patients with Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were included in this study. We analyzed the differences in CPSTT before and after treatment with Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation (CRTM), a representative OMT technique in Traditional Chinese Medicine, using the STTCC technology. RESULTS: The STTCC results demonstrated that post-treatment CPSTT levels in CSR patients were significantly lower than pre-treatment levels after application of CRTM, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Additionally, pre-treatment CPSTT levels on the symptomatic side (with radicular pain or numbness) were higher across the C5 to C7 vertebrae compared to the asymptomatic side (without symptoms) (P < 0.001). However, this difference disappeared after CRTM treatment (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS: The STTCC technology represents a reliable method for analyzing the immediate effects of OMT. CSR patients display uneven distribution of CPSTT characterized by higher tension on the symptomatic side. CRTM not only reduces overall cervical soft tissue tension in CSR patients, but can also balance the asymmetrical tension between the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Website: . https://www.chictr.org.cn .) on 20/04/2021 and the Registration Number is ChiCTR2100045648.

Effects of sustained natural apophyseal glides versus rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headache.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is designated as the most common type of secondary headache that results from conditions affecting the neck's bony components, muscles, and intervertebral discs rather than the head itself. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the effects of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) versus the Rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headaches. METHODS: This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample size was 38, and participants aged 20-60 years (mean age 40.22 ± 9.66) suffering from cervicogenic headaches were randomly allocated using the lottery method into two groups with 19 participants in each group. Assessment of subjects was done before starting treatment and by the end of the 8th week for all the variables. Outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Flexion-Rotation test (FRT) to assess the rotation range of motion at the level of C1-C2 (goniometer) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for the intensity of pain. Data analysis was done by SPSS (IBM) 25. To check the normality of the data the Shapiro-Wilk test was used. RESULTS: In the Shapiro-Wilk test p-value of all the testing variables i.e. NDI, HIT-6 score, FRT and NPRS was > 0.05, data was normally distributed and parametric tests were used. Group A showed a considerable improvement (p < 0.05) in all variables compared to Group B, while within-group analysis of both groups shows that all outcome measures show significant results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that both SNAGs and Rocabado's 6 × 6 exercises were effective for the treatment of cervicogenic headache but the effects of headache SNAG were superior and produced more improvement in intensity of headache, disability, frequency of headache, duration of headache as compared to Rocabado 6 × 6 exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05865808 on date 19/05/2023.

A randomized controlled trial comparing different sites of high-velocity low amplitude thrust on sensorimotor integration parameters.

Increasing evidence suggests that a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust directed at a dysfunctional vertebral segment in people with subclinical spinal pain alters various neurophysiological measures, including somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). We hypothesized that an HVLA thrust applied to a clinician chosen vertebral segment based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction, in short, segment considered as "relevant" would significantly reduce the N30 amplitude compared to an HVLA thrust applied to a predetermined vertebral segment not based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction or segment considered as "non-relevant". In this double-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-design study, 96 adults with recurrent mild neck pain, ache, or stiffness were randomly allocated to receiving a single thrust directed at either a segment considered as "relevant" or a segment considered as "non-relevant" in their upper cervical spine. SEPs of median nerve stimulation were recorded before and immediately after a single HVLA application delivered using an adjusting instrument (Activator). A linear mixed model was used to assess changes in the N30 amplitude. A significant interaction between the site of thrust delivery and session was found (F1,840 = 9.89, p < 0.002). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant immediate decrease in the N30 complex amplitude after the application of HVLA thrust to a segment considered "relevant" (- 16.76 ± 28.32%, p = 0.005). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the group that received HVLA thrust over a segment considered "non-relevant" (p = 0.757). Cervical HVLA thrust applied to the segment considered as "relevant" altered sensorimotor parameters, while cervical HVLA thrust over the segment considered as "non-relevant" did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that spinal site targeting of HVLA interventions is important when measuring neurophysiological responses. Further studies are needed to explore the potential clinical relevance of these findings.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up. METHODS: We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits. RESULTS: Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).